% !TEX root = main.tex

\subsection{Synthesis}
\label{sec:comparison}

\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{Comparison of MDS Methodologies}
\label{tab:comparison}
\begin{center}
%\small
\begin{tabular}{l || c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c}
\hline
%first row
%\multirow{3}{*}{MDS Methodology} 
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\textbf{Modeling}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{Analysis}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Transformation}}& \multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{Tool}}\\ \cline{2-10}
%second row
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{\emph{Business}}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{\emph{Security}}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\emph{Traceability}}}& \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\emph{Property}}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\emph{M2M}}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\emph{M2C}}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\emph{M2T}}} & \\ \cline{2-5}
%thrid row
& \uml & \dsl & \uml & \dsl & & & & & & \\ \hline
%content
UMLsec \cite{springerlink:10.1007/3-540-45314-8-14,springerlink:10.1007/11804192-4} & \checkmark & X & \checkmark & X & o & I & \checkmark & X & X & \checkmark  \\ \hline
SecureUML \cite{Basin:2006:MDS:1125808.1125810,Basin:2011:DMS:1998441.1998443,Basin:2003:MDS:775412.775425} & \checkmark & X & \checkmark & X & - & AC & \checkmark & \checkmark & X & \checkmark \\ \hline
SECTET \cite{mdse-breu-jos-2007}\cite{10.1007/s10009-007-0045-y} & \checkmark & X & \checkmark & X & - & AC & \checkmark & o & X & \checkmark \\ \hline
ProSecO \cite{10.1007/978-3-540-78942-0-8} & X & o & X & o & o & T & X & X & X & X \\ \hline
ModelSec \cite{sanchez:jucs-15-15} & X & \checkmark & X & \checkmark & - & Multi & \checkmark & o & X & \checkmark \\ \hline
%note
\multicolumn{11}{l}
{
Note: Support (\checkmark); Partially support (o); Doesn't support (X); Unknown (-);
} \\
\multicolumn{11}{l}
{
~~~~~~~~Threat/Adversary (T); Integrity/Confidentiality (I);
} \\
\multicolumn{11}{l}
{
~~~~~~~~Access control (AC); Multiple security concerns (Multi);
} \\
\multicolumn{11}{l}
{
~~~~~~~~UML profile (UML); DSL other than UML profile (DSL);
} \\
\multicolumn{11}{l}
{
~~~~~~~~PIM to PSM (M2M); PSM to Code (M2C); PSM to Tests (M2T);
}
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}

Table \ref{tab:comparison} provides a synthetic view on each \mds methodology evaluated regarding four aspects. 
The \emph{modeling} aspect shows the modeling languages used for business and security concerns (either \uml profiles or other tailored \dsls). 
The \emph{analysis} aspect shows on one hand if the \mds methodology supports \emph{traceability}, and on the other hand which kind of security \emph{property} it deals with: 
Access Control (AC), Threat/Adversary (T), Integrity/Confidentiality (I) or it is able to deal with multiple security concerns (Multi). 
The \emph{transformation} aspect concerns the use of transformations for the three crucial parts in the Y-Model: 
generating \textsc{Psm} from \textsc{Pim} (M2M); generating targeted code from \textsc{Pim} (M2C); and automatically generating testing artifacts (M2T). 
The last aspect indicates if the evaluated \mds methodology provides \emph{Tool} support.
